Popular Vote v. Electoral College (Why The Media Badly Needs A History Lesson)

Despite Barack Obama's (D) amazingly consistent lead throughout the general election over John McCain (R), the talking heads on cable television returned to their incessant bloviating over whether Obama should be leading by more than just five points over McCain. It's really painful to watch these fools who don't bother to pay attention to history to understand how a five-point popular vote victory almost always translates when it comes to the only metric that matters -- the Electoral College. (Hint: landslide)

So, rather than expect that someone will take a peek at historical data, I figured I'd go ahead and do it myself.

Below are the results from the last 20 presidential elections, listing the Electoral Vote margin by the winner over the loser (or second place finisher), as well as the popular vote margin.

Year	Winner	EV Margin	Pop Vote Margin
2004	Bush	36	2.4
2000	Bush	4	-0.5
1996	Clinton	220	8.5
1992	Clinton	202	5.6
1988	Bush	315	7.8
1984	Reagan	512	18.2
1980	Reagan	440	9.7
1976	Carter	57	2.1
1972	Nixon	503	23.2
1968	Nixon	110	0.7
1964	Johnson	434	22.6
1960	Kennedy	84	0.1
1956	Eisenhower	384	15.4
1952	Eisenhower	353	10.9
1948	Truman	114	4.5
1944	Roosevelt	333	7.5
1940	Roosevelt	367	9.9
1936	Roosevelt	515	24.3
1932	Roosevelt	413	17.7
1928	Hoover	357	17.4

Then, I charted this data into a simple Excel spreadsheet and added a trendline.

Take note of just how large of an electoral landslide results from a five-point popular vote victory. It's pretty massive and usually results in an Electoral Vote margin of about 200. The elections that most closely mirror the margin in the current contest are:

• 1992: Clinton won the popular vote by 5.6 points, winning the Electoral College by a 370 to 168 margin (a difference of 202);
            
• 1948: Truman won the popular vote by 4.5 points, winning the Electoral College by a 303 to 189 margin (a difference of 114).

Also, keep in mind that Obama's current five-plus point lead is with undecideds added to the mix. If you simply allocate undecideds by the percentage each candidate is getting, Obama's lead jumps to close to seven points (w/o undecideds in parentheses):

CBS News: Obama 45-39 (Obama 53.6-46.4, +7.2)
AP/IPSOS: Obama 47-41 (Obama 53.4-46.6, +6.8)
Time:     Obama 46-41 (Obama 52.9-47.1, +5.8)

In contrast, Bush's landslide over Dukakis in 1988 happened with a popular vote margin of just 7.8 points and Reagan's rout of Carter in 1980 saw a margin of 9.7 points. In a historical context, a five or six point popular vote victory always translates into a landslide.

So, exactly, what are the dimwits on cable news talking about?

What about a five-point lead do these people think is not large enough when you look at the last century of American presidential elections?

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "Popular Vote v. Electoral College (Why The Media Should Do Its Homework)"

 

Follow Mark Nickolas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mnickolas

Comments

[mvy]

02:07 PM on 08/11/2008

To make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan

[AbbieXHoffman]

08:13 PM on 08/10/2008

Regardless of history, why does it matter that BO isn't leading by more? He is leading both nationally and in the swing states so........why can't is be enough?

[keramos]

06:54 PM on 08/10/2008

And this is why the Electoral college should be done away with. It is an anachronism for which justification has long ago passed. Let the candidates compete for votes, not all or nothing synthesized votes.

[rodnacious]

02:15 PM on 08/10/2008

Here is my scenario...

McCain goes into the convention being the presumptive nominee, but let's everyone know at the last minute that skin cancer has returned and it is doubtfully that he will recover from this latest bout.

At the convention, a new nominee is selected to run against Obama, upsettiing the entire presidential race. Stay tuned...

[Triangle1]

01:35 PM on 08/10/2008

If the election were held say a month ago, all of this might be true. Obama's lead is dissolving day by day. If one set of Paris Hilton commercials can erase a 9 point lead, what's going to happen when the Republican attack machine gets down to business? Democrats shouldn't be lulled into complacency. There are a lot of issues floating around that could shave off any remaining Obama lead. We thought John Kerry had the election all wrapped up four years ago. Remember Kerry effectively trouncing Bush in the debates? But there is one big difference. Kerry had a LOT more experience than Obama. Obama is up against a crippled GOP, he has a ton of cash in the bank, he has everything from Nancy Pelosi to moveon.org supporting him, yet in some polls he's running with a statistical tie with McCain. Why can't Obama close the deal? http://mespace.wordpress.com

[Doofus]

10:43 AM on 08/10/2008

I still say Presidential election history comes down to this:

2004 Bush - Damn, we're still in a war.
2000 Bush - Tired of & annoyed by the Demos.
1996 Clinton - We got a good thing goin' on!
1992 Clinton - Enough with the Repo man already.
1988 Bush - Dukakis in a tank? - C'mon!
1984 Reagan - Mondale & Ferraro? - C'mon!
1980 Reagan - Enough with the Demo already.
1976 Carter - Enough with the Repo man, really.
1972 Nixon - Damn, there's a war on!
1968 Nixon - Enough with the Demos!

Upcoming it's either...

Damn, enough with the Repos, seriously.
- or -
Damn, there's still a war going on.

[AbbieXHoffman]

08:21 PM on 08/10/2008

Dead right. The "keep it simple stupid" mantra is sometimes the most rational explanation to most things.

The dems want the election to be "Damn, enough with the Repos/Bush, seriously." (They aren't succeeding that well at making JM look like the other repos but they are trying.)

The repos want, "Dukakis in a tank/BO is eccentric and inexperienced" (They aren't succeeding at this very well either).

It's going to be a very very close election.

[Tulka2]

01:53 AM on 08/10/2008

Oh.. and here's my worst paranoia: Rove's GOP plans to steal it anyway, in Penn., Ohio and/or Florida.

The reason to make it LOOK like a horsereace might be because they plan to make it LOOK like McBush wins.

[Tulka2]

01:49 AM on 08/10/2008

I try to understand the motivation that makes tv-land talk this up as a "neck and neck horserace".

Here is my sincere question:

What percentage of their annual budget does the 2008 campaign ad money represent to the networks, Fox and MSNBC? Is it huge? No one ever says. I would also like to know how much money the local media in Iowa got during the primary in 2007?

I want you to follow the money.

[swkidder]

04:43 PM on 08/09/2008

Great piece. Love the ones in which someone did some hard investigating, and from which I learn something as a result. Thank you .. from your lips to God's Ears ...

[Daisy1111]

03:11 PM on 08/09/2008

As of the latest poll of 4000 people, M is +1 ahead of O.

The consistency you speak of is O keeps losing points to M... drip, drip, drip.

Stating numbers from 15 years ago is moot.

We now have 24-hour election coverage and the net. Throw your old numbers away.

Because in this era of communication Mr. O is very vulnerable.

Landslide? Ha!

[klmebane]

04:10 PM on 08/10/2008

hey, if u want to vote against your own interests thats fine.

[Hope2009]

03:36 PM on 08/19/2008

Obama shares 95% of my values. He's very intelligent and articulate. He answers questions thoughtfully instead of shooting off one word or one sentence simplistic responses. He understands the complexities of the energy crisis, the economic meltdown, global warming and world crises. He realizes that a few hundred dollars of a tax write-off for a few thousand dollars Federal Income tax exemption (McCain's Plan) is not going to make health insurance affordable for most people. He has an incredible story of how he overcame the disadvantages of growing up in a single parent family, the support and love his mother and grandparents gave him and his rise from poverty to achieving the American Dream through education, hard work and smarts.

McCain shares 5% of my values. He's of average intelligence and not very articulate. He answers questions quickly and very simplistically without much thought about the complexities for any issue. He is simplistic in his reasoning. Unlike Obama, he approves stupid, negative and misleading ads about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and attacks Obama's character with lies and misrepresentations trying to distract the American people from the issues that matter to us.

Obama versus McCain? No contest. Obama has my vote!

[DaOne]

12:34 PM on 08/09/2008

The talking heads are only interested in ratings and their jobs so they have to talk up a non existant horse race. The EV math clearly shows where this race is going and it's going to be a 328 to 210 win for O!

[kevinem2]

12:17 PM on 08/09/2008

Reassuring article. I'm just curious, given the 1948 results, how the famous Dewey beats Truman glitch came about?

[Josiwe]

11:19 AM on 08/09/2008

This is not as complicated as it seems. The "talking heads" you refer to understand the math. However, after the past eight years many of them have the same insecurities and desperation for real leadership that the general public does. Just because they are pundits doesn't mean they aren't human. If Obama was leading by 15 points, most of them would be worried about backlash in the fall, while some would be asking why he isn't leading by 20 points. The feeling is "duh, it's obviously Obama, so why aren't the polls running at 80/20? That's the only point at which I could begin to feel certain that SCOTUS won't give the presidency to McCain."

[mssisyphus]

08:53 AM on 08/09/2008

I am amazed at the talking heads that insist that middle aged, white female voters from the South just simply could not vote for Obama.

Well, I think they are going to be very surprised by the results. I fall into that category 100% and am on board for Obama all the way!!!

I heard a political "expert" make a remark about the way voters are going to go and another made the comment "that's what you would like to believe".

To me, that sums it up. The Republicans want so badly to believe that no self respecting white middle aged woman from the South would possible vote for Obama.

Can't wait to see the spin they will put on it when he blows McSame away in November.

No American, regardless of region or affiliation, that has paid any attention to the mess the current "Idiot in Chief" has made over the last 7 1/2 years can vote for more of the same.

[PhiLLyinDaLLaS]

01:24 PM on 08/09/2008

This was the best thing I've read all day, you still give me hope for the people of this country. =)

Thank you mssisyphus

[Squalish]

11:15 PM on 08/08/2008

Color me hopelessly naive/optimistic, but I think a lot of the journalists are wondering just how in the hell McCain has any votes at all, given the campaign he's been running. The sector of journalistic wisdom which came up with the "Treat any contention neutrally as a conflict between two equally worthwhile parties" line, and the media-owners who see that close races produce monster ratings, does the rest.

[jwalden91lx]

12:14 AM on 08/11/2008

Think P.T. Barnum.

Not very optimistic, but the truth nonetheless.